Dismissed

Dilip Sharma v. Union of India

Rajasthan HC4 Sept 2024CW/14498/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a plea to add NPCIL Foreman employees to the voter list. The court held that the order relied on an unchallenged communication categorizing such employees as supervisors, so no interference was warranted without challenging the underlying notification.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; issue remains open for raising while challenging the Notification dated 21.06.2013.

Dilip Sharma Vs Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:36796]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14498/2024

¶4

Dilip Sharma S/o Shri Vedhraj Sharma, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of Type 3/20K, Anupratap Colony, Antaraliya, Chittorgarh (Raj.). - Chairman, Rawatbhata Rajasthan Site Karamchari Sangh (Npc), Anupratap Colony, Post Bhabha Nagar, Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh.

¶5

Gerutama Parasar S/o Late Shri Murari Lal, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of Quarter No. Type 2/22G, Anukiran Colony, Post Bhabhanagar, Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Union Of India, Through Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Shramev Jayate Bhawan, G-4, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi.

¶9

Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Shramev Jayate Bhawan, Haribhau Upadhyay Nagar Vistar, Pushkar Road, Ajmer, Distt. Ajmer.

¶10

Returning Officer, Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Ahemdabad, Additional Charge Ajmer, Distt. Ajmer.

¶11

Nuclear Power Corporation Of India Limited, Rawatbhata, Rajasthan Site, District Chittorgarh.

¶12

Site Director, Rajasthan Atomic Power Station, Npcil, Rr Site, Po Anushakti, Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh.

¶13

Rawatbhata Rajasthan Site Karamchari Sangh (Npc), Anupratap Colony, Post Bhabha Nagar, Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh - Through Its Secretary.

¶14

----Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Bohra For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, DSG with Ms. Dimple Rajpurohit Mr. Mukul Singhvi

(2 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JD:36796]

[CW-14498/2024]

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶20

Order

¶21

04/09/2024

¶22

The present writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 16.08.2024 (Annexure-7) passed by respondent No.3 - Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Ahemdabad whereby the objection as raised by petitioner No.1 Dilip Sharma, has been rejected.

¶23

An objection was raised by petitioner No.1, vide his email, to the Returning Officer to add names of the employees who are working in ‘Foreman’ category, in the voter list.

¶24

The objection as raised by petitioner No.1 has been rejected by the order impugned with a specific finding that all the Foreman designated employees of Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL), RR Site, Rawatbhata fall under the Supervisory category as per NPCIL corporate office letter dated 21.06.2013, therefore, they do not fall under the definition of ‘workman’ as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

¶25

Vide Notification/communication dated 21.06.2013 (which has been placed on record today by learned counsel for NPCIL), it was communicated as under :

¶26

“The categorization of employees as ‘workmen’ was notified vide Corporate Office letter No.NPCIL/VSB/ IR/161/641 dated 05.02.2001. In supersession of the aforesaid letter dated 05.02.2001, the revised categorization of employees as workmen is enclosed as Annexure-1. The employees covered in Annexure-1 shall be treated as “Workmen” in NPCIL for the purpose of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, Standing Orders/Model

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JD:36796]

[CW-14498/2024]

Standing Orders as per the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946 and for the purpose of all other legislations and Acts in which the meaning of workman has been assigned as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The remaining employees other than Executives shall be treated as Supervisors (Non-Workmen) .

¶31

This categorization of employees is not to be linked to any other benefit and facility extended to the employees under the provisions of any other Rules.”

¶32

Admittedly, the list Annexure-1, as enclosed with the above communication, does not include any of the grade of Foreman. Meaning thereby, all grades of Foreman were to be treated as Supervisors (non-workmen).

¶33

The Notification/communication dated 21.06.2013 is not under challenge in the present writ petition and hence, the order impugned, which has been passed on basis of the said communication, cannot be interfered with, without a challenge been laid to communication dated 21.06.2013.

¶34

In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the issue shall remain open for the petitioners to be raised while challenging the Notification/communication dated 21.06.2013.

¶35

Stay petition and the pending applications, if any, stand disposed of .

¶36

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶37

354-SP/Vij/-

Dilip Sharma v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Sharma v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shanti Lal Rampuria Vs Tarachand Jatanlal Rampuria HUF

Lrs. of Mohammad Salim Vs Abdul Rashid

Pemp Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Ravishankar Singh Vs Lal Singh

Rajasthan Anushakti Priyojna Karmchari Sangh Vs Union of India

Gram Panchayat Manpura Kharda Vs the State of Rajasthan